Okay, you asked, so I will name all of the characters that we've been talking about. There's May, Jack, the coward is Arc, the daughter is Sarah, the son is JJ, the Big Bad is only referred to as "King" or "Majesty", the antagonist that wants freedom is Harrison. There actually is two sides to this story. There's the protagonists, and then there's Harrison, who wants freedom by pushing down those around him. His story isn't given a POV, but it's experienced through May's part of the story, who spends a good portion of her story pursuing him and trying to stop him, eventually coming to understand him through several encounters, and, in the end, trying to help him change, although she fails. The story is going to experience Harrison through May. Well, first of all, it's not a Star Wars rip-off. My story explores different themes than Star Wars, and has different character arcs than Star Wars. Second, I'm disappointed that you'd write off a concept just because it's a cliche. Cliches are a shorthand used so that the author can explore certain aspects of a story, without having to explain exactly how that concepts got to where it is in the first place. That's not their only purpose, but that's how I use them. For example, I use it to explore how Sarah and JJ see their shared predicament (That being a father that they see as unfit to rule) in different ways, without having to explain why they oppose their father. They oppose him because their ideals clash, and that's all. If that's a cliche, then so be it. I don't see the point of writing something off just because it's been used by famous authors before. Third, But if it's basically a Star Wars rip-off (i.e. evil dad good son, or rebelling against an absentee father in general) doesn't even describe a Star Wars ripoff. By that logic, the story of Zues killing Kronos is a Star Wars ripoff, or several Greek legends are Star Wars ripoffs. I'm actually really curious about this one. Why? What makes a video game story different from a book story, aside from the obvious difference of being able to control your character inbetween the mandatory story scenes. I don't get how that's a plot hole. The protagonists aren't willing to let their dad stay in power that long because they're scared of what he'll do in that time. It doesn't contradict the plot in any way, it's just a difference in how you think and how the characters think. Historical lifespans don't apply, as the magic-like powers imply, this is fantasy. No, JJ can't just have a conversation with King. King is someone who is willing to kill his own son just because he rebelled, he's not going to listen to any kind of reason from someone he cares so little about. There aren't any specific nobles. This is a small country. Like, tiny. It only has two towns in it. That's the main reason why he wants to become a superpower. He's got a napoleon complex. That, combined with his inherent strength, pushes him to try to make his country, and himself, a powerful force in the wider world. He plans to accomplish this by taking over a neighboring country and working his way up from there. Well, if he kills her, then he has nothing to prompt the other characters to rush to save her, leaving them unprepared. This only works on May, but he got pretty close to killing another rebel. If he hadn't used her as bait, then the others would have just scattered and waited until they had a better chance at winning. Making it even more dangerous in the long run. The original goal was never to kill the King, they'd just overthrow him. The other protagonists only decide it's time to kill him once he kills JJ and starts trying to take over the neighboring country. Well, King did want the family to happen, but he also had more reasons than most people. Also, the King and Queen were partners. I'm currently putting all of the important plot points in order.
"JJ"? What does that stand for? Meanwhile Harrison is an awkward name since it means "son of Harris", therefore it's best as a last name (assuming it's meant to be a first name). Freedom at others' expense and forced equality are different concepts although there is overlap. I can't say how interesting it'll be since... well, if Harry is basically an emo Christian Grey then that's rather sterile. At best I can imagine him being a young and misguided philosopher-type. Hard to judge until I see it, if that makes sense. True but they're no less boring. Daddy issues is so 1970's. Mommy issues are now the rage (though I'm being sarcastic, this does say a lot about the culture of the West in the past few decades). Mainly because magic in video games operates with strict and consistent rules (outside story events at least) therefore it's not normally an over-powered cheat code. There's limited mana to work with and when a mage has used up her mana, she's just a girl in a dress who thought wearing armor and keeping a back-up sword was too casual. In literature I struggle to really care for the magic because it tends to work on rules obscure to the reader and can really "come out of left field" when it's least expected (like a Deus ex Machina). A potential solution is dedicated chapters (maybe an index) describing the limitations of magic and what's possible with magic as well as generally how to actually learn it, use it, and retain it. Like a finite resource, perhaps. It'd be tricky to make it work for a story, but I think Harry Potter actually does it fairly well since magic is generally limited to tricks and taps until the very end (which I do not remember as well as the first third of the series to comment on). However I wouldn't say magic is the main pull of Harry Potter; it's the personality of the story as well as the depth of characterization and sense of otherworldliness and humor. Magic is just a way of flavoring it and binding it together. It could have easily taken place on the Mongolian Steppes and been about horse archery and nomadic warfare rather than magic and still be quite good because (like the Steppes) the world of Harry Potter is interesting and grounded while simultaneously humorous and absurd--plus a great central cast with likable bad guys (who even mature into good guys in some cases). I generally prefer video games over novels for the purpose of self-control just because in video games I can control my character and be directly inserted into the experience. However some novels are just so good with their stories and characters I just can't help but love it even though I'm merely an observer/mind-reader. Similar with good anime or TV shows (although I rarely watch non-Eastern film of any kind except South Park and maybe one or two other things once in a Red Moon). I generally consider magic tertiary (if not in the way) in literature, such as Game of Thrones or the Hobbit (which, like Harry Potter, generally keeps magic limited and thus not too "out there" and unpredictable). It's a plot hole because IRL it makes no sense. Maybe if the King had a dozen children he might (maybe) value them not a lot on an individual level, but if he only has two I'd imagine him being extremely protective of them--even if he's super evil--just because they're his legacy and lifeline in the very long term (at the very least). A potential comparison is King Faust from Fairy Tail; he was the first TRULY villainous villain in the series and quite scary; however his short-sightedness was part of the point and while Fairy Tail loves its happy endings, Fairy Tail gets its fun and appeal from the comedy, harmony, and lightness of the show. So the sudden tone shift in King Faust's Arc actually built up a lot of drama and (even though Natsu was obviously going to win one way or another) it was quite enjoyable. However if the main cast wasn't a beloved one like in Fairy Tail, if there wasn't already an investment into the world, then the arc by itself just wouldn't be so fun (especially to read--the show is highly visual). The story not making sense is okay in Fairy Tail because that's part of the charm and comedy; however for more "serious" or "grounded" stories, making sense is very important. And while I have read of sons killing their fathers, I have never read of a father killing his son (at least among kings and princes). Even evil Kings like Henry II who repeatedly suppressed rebellions by his rowdy sons (and even his wife) would not actually kill any of them and while he was a very rough and aggressive man, he was not quick to actual killing--although in the end he was hounded and died of old age in a tower. What kind of government is it? Monarchies tend to be very decentralized, especially European ones. Realistically, the king of a small country would either be very powerless (because he owns little to no land and thus has little direct tax/rent money) or very powerful (because he owns nearly all the rent/tax money and doles it out to lesser nobles and knights rather than shares power with earls and dukes). Bigger countries are fairly consistent in that (especially European monarchies) the king is not at all as powerful as fiction makes him out to be. Modern heads of state (presidents/prime ministers) tend to be far more powerful both legally and effectively than most historical monarchs who had to defer to not just an army of aristocrats but also the clergy, military (specifically the knights), and whoever is paying the taxes (merchants/commoners). It's possible for King Nameless to be a dictator kind of like Henry II but that's not the norm, and even in Henry II's case he had to repeatedly beat his sons and half the aristocracy just because they didn't like him but were unable to actually imprison or dethrone him (until the very end anyway). Maybe. Or, potentially, they would form up in a convenient location alongside all other opposition (townies and lesser nobles for example) and thus make them a big target for concentrated force. Jack is apparently a big girl, so killing her would definitely deprive the opposition of a leader strong leader. If May and others had came (and succeeded to rescue Jack, as they did) then the King would have squandered the perfect moment to nip his problems in the bud as well as give inspiration to his enemies. Still regime change. And extremely odd the King would kill his only son. Does he have a dozen other sons lining up? Is he eternally 18 and surrounded by a harem of pregnant women? I cannot imagine a father taking the life of his only son so casually. Even Stalin struggled to let the Germans keep one of his sons in their POW camps. Then why eliminate Queen Mama? At the very least it could explain (maybe) the callousness of the King in killing his only son (he can make more, he is infatuated by his Queen, etc.). Plus the more developed characters you have, the merrier. And, it helps humanize the otherwise inhuman king. So, no written pages? You might be trying to plan it too much; consider winging it for a while and then revising once you've written your first Frankenstein draft. If you have something tangible to work with, you can evolve. Otherwise it's only in your head. Not to mention it'll probably help you with characterization and plot and details since you'll be able to grow it organically rather than centrally plan it like some kind of Soviet bureaucrat. As it stands, it seems an awful lot like Spartacus (the old original story) mixed with Fairy Tail minus the humor, light-heartedness, and beloved cast. I can't say for sure what kind of soup this will brew from an outline as I think the potential greatness will come from its execution. Like, after you've written half or more of it you ought to have something more intelligently evolved. And once you're back revising the beginning and practically re-writing it, you'll probably be making it the best possible work you could make it.
I don't "wing" things well. If I don't have an outline of what I'm going to do, then I have massive problems with staying on schedule. Either I plan this out from the start, or it won't happen. That or it'll turn into an incoherent mess. But, yeah. I think I've settled on the story I want to write. Thanks for the replies, it helped me think through some muddled thoughts I had. I'm going to get to writing it now.
Go for it! Personally though, I find planning to be another word for procrastinating. Once I had the skeleton formed, I would rather just go in and grow it organically and then revise after the fact. I tend to see it as "temporary schizophrenia" as I like to put myself into my characters and thus "become them" while writing as them. Between writing (like in transit or activities that are not mentally engaging) I think about the long-term of the story and the world around it (even having mental conversations with my characters as those characters as a way of reinforcing who they are into my mind). I may be unique, or I may be common (or common-ish). Personally though, I find myself wasting too much time when I try to plan (and that's an especial weakness of mine as I like to be prompt and scheduled, but I can spend so much time formalizing a plan that I could have simply "done it" and worked from there. This is especially problematic when I try to plan my hobbies rather than keep a few prioritized ones and then just wing it in my free time).
